Not when secutiry is an a massive issue though Ian, sorry, I wouldn't be happy about the MPs standing outside puffing away in the middle of debates...
They choose to smoke but are unable to go outside....it's different.

We all know how harmful smoking is. If someone wishes to smoke that is their choice.

But it isn't the choice of a non-smoker, including a dog, to be subjected to second hand smoke and to suffer any adverse effects from it.

http://www.tobaccofreeutah.org/smokingpets.htm

Dogs live shorter lives than us but I believe have faster metabolisms so toxins affect them more quickly.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...round-zero.htm

Furthermore, breathing in second hand smoke will cause them health problems during their short lives:

http://www.dogsrule.co.uk/blog/healt...arms-your-dog/

"A study by Colorado State University found that a dog that has exposure to a smoker in the home is 1.6 times more likely to develop lung cancer than a dog that is not exposed to a smoker. The study also found that skull shape had an effect on the estimated risk of lung cancer in dogs."[55]
^ Reif JS, Dunn K, Ogilvie GK, Harris CK. (1992). "Passive smoking and canine lung cancer risk.". Am J Epidemiol. 135 (3): 234-9. PMID 1546698
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking

http://www.up-2-you.net/passivepets.asp


Smoking is an individual choice. We don't have to smoke around our dogs, just as we don't have to smoke around our families or friends. Even if it is 'merely' unpleasant for them to have to breathe in; dogs don't have a voice so why subject them to it if it may cause them harm?

Lovely debate

I have to say i agree with inca and ian here

I also found beckys post offensive. I didnt see the pic of a dog in the lab as i havent read the other thread but come on how does that mean all smokers are being cruel to their dogs

They stand outside and give interviews to TV men? Best watch themselves eh..... sorry but you can't have rules for one and not for all.....

Anyway had enough.... we agree to disagree... off for a fag now ....... night night

i think its a good debate ....MOST of whats been posted has been really good ....

good points and great info ....

Becky, I don't really think this comment is called for. Just because people who are dog owners choose to smoke, doesn't make them any less an animal lover than those who don't smoke.

Whenever we take our dogs for a walk near a busy road, we're subjecting them to carbon minoxiode. It affects dogs more than us as they're closer to the ground than we are. Does this mean you're also going to stop walking your dogs near roads?
I smoke, but not in the house. I smoke outside in the courtyard and my dogs aren't out there with me. I treat my dogs health the same way I treat my kids, and I'm fully aware of the risks of passive smoking, both to dogs and humans alike.

I used to work for Glaxo Welcome (now Phizers) and I KNOW what these animals were subjected to.

Shhh it's GlaxoSmithKline .

Nobody here can be accused of not being an animal lover, one only has to look at some of the heart-rendering posts that are made or the wonderful stories that are told or the fabulous pictures that are posted to see that.

agree with that LS

*whispers* but it's Phizers that make and test it all

Linda, I totally agree with you. I don't think that us smokers should be questioned as animal lovers

i agree with you wolfie.............